An overview of important court decisions affecting workplace rights. Updated weekly.
Select a court circuit from the map below or from this list.
Appeals from federal circuit (intermediate appellate level) courts and original hearing for disputes between states
Kentucky Retirement Sys. v. Equal Opportunity Employment Comm'n (No. 06-1037)
Decision Date: June 19, 2008
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) case, the Court rules that Kentucky's retirement benefits system for policemen, firemen, and other "hazardous position" workers does not discriminate against workers who become disabled after becoming eligible for retirement based on age. This is so even though the system treats some disabled individuals more generously than it treats some of those who became disabled only after becoming eligible for retirement on the basis of age.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab. (No. 06-1505)
Decision Date: June 19, 2008
In the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), an employer facing a disparate-impact claim and planning to defend on the basis of "reasonable factors other than age" (RFOA) must not only produce evidence raising the defense, but also persuade the factfinder of its merit.
Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agric. (No. 07-474)
Decision Date: June 9, 2008
The "class-of-one" theory of equal protection does not apply in the context of public employment. Thus, a public employee cannot state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that she was arbitrarily treated differently from other similarly situated employees, with no assertion that the different treatment was based on the employee's membership in any particular class.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island
Velez v. Thermo King De Puerto Rico, Inc. (No. 08-1320)
Decision Date: October 16, 2009
In plaintiff's age discrimination suit against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded as, under the three stage burden shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), several aspects of the evidence, taken together, are more than sufficient to support a factfinder's conclusion that defendant was motivated by age-based discrimination, thus raising a genuine issue of material fact that defeats summary judgment.
Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC (No. 08-1865)
Decision Date: August 11, 2009
In an employment discrimination action, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination under state law as she put forth evidence that defendant regarded plaintiff as handicapped, that she was still able to perform the essential functions of the job despite the handicap, and that she suffered an adverse employment action as a result of her handicap; and 2) a reasonable jury could find that the removal of plaintiff from the work schedule was predicated on impermissible discrimination rather than a permissible legitimate concern about her ability to perform the job safely.
Welch v. Campia (No. 072470)
Decision Date: September 23, 2008
In a lawsuit filed against the Chief of Police and the Town on the grounds that defendants impermissibly retaliated against plaintiff for exercising his First Amendment rights, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff's non-reappointment constituted an adverse employment action sufficient to support a section 1983 claim; 2) district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of co-defendants because defendant was the only one with the appointment authority; 3) plaintiff failed to explain how defendants' actions resulted in unreasonably inferior work conditions; 4) defendants' argument that plaintiff's First Amendment claim failed; 5) the district court erred in placing the burden on plaintiff to show that the reasons articulated by defendant were pretextual; 6) liability can be imposed for defendant's decision not to reappoint plaintiff; 7) plaintiff's whistleblower claims survived since there was a q! uestion as to whether he was not reappointed because of his involvement in the grand jury investigation; and 8) district court erred in concluding that plaintiff could not maintain an action for interference with advantageous relations.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont
Wilson v. CIA (No. 07-4244)
Decision Date: November 12, 2009
In a First Amendment action claiming that the CIA was required to allow former employee Valerie Plame Wilson to publish a memoir about her tenure at the agency, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff, and not the agency, permitted the classified information at issue to be revealed to the public; and 2) further, the public disclosure did not deprive the information of classified status, and the agency demonstrated good reason for adhering to its classification decision. A former CIA agent cannot use her own unauthorized disclosure of classified information to challenge the CIA's ability to maintain the information as classified.
Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ. (No. 07-4567)
Decision Date: October 23, 2009
In a gender and age discrimination action by an employee of a university, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to produce evidence of an express or implied contract to continue her employment. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) in the circumstances here, a non-renewal of an employment contract itself was an adverse employment action and the district court erred in requiring plaintiff to show the existence of an unofficial tenured position to satisfy the adverse action requirement; and 2) the circumstances surrounding the non-renewal of her contract gave rise to an inference of age or gender discrimination.
Seidemann v. Bowen (No. 08-3922)
Decision Date: October 15, 2009
In a First Amendment action alleging that a professor's union impermissibly charged plaintiff a pro rata share of expenses unrelated to the union's collective bargaining duties, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) a public-sector union's political activities aimed at securing a new contract may be chargeable to nonmembers if those activities are pertinent to the union's role as a collective bargaining representative; 2) nonmembers may be required to subsidize lobbying efforts undertaken by a "parent" union of the local public-sector union if the lobbying is related to collective bargaining and may ultimately inure to the benefit of local union members; 3) the district court erred in upholding the union's charges to nonmembers for (a) political activity undertaken to secure a new contract, (b) lobbying by the local union's state affiliate, (c) costs incurred to send union delegates to the state affiliate's annual convention, and (d) the salaries of the union'! s employees; 4) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's challenge to the union's charges for media communications by its national affiliate; and 5) it erred in holding, sua sponte, that plaintiff will be required to arbitrate future claims against the union before filing suit.
Halpert v. Manhattan Apts., Inc. (No. 07-4074)
Decision Date: September 10, 2009
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act action regarding a statement by a third party retained by defendant that plaintiff was too old for the position at issue, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where an employer may be held liable for discrimination by third parties, including independent contractors, that the employer authorizes to make hiring decisions on its behalf.
Sousa v. Roque (No. 07-1892)
Decision Date: August 21, 2009
In an action by a public employee claiming that defendants retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment for reporting workplace violence, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the speaker's motive is not dispositive of whether the speech is on a matter of public concern.
Simmons v. N.Y. City Transit Authority (No. 08-4079)
Decision Date: August 3, 2009
In a dispute involving attorney's fees, district court judgment is vacated and remanded where the court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff's based on the prevailing hourly rates in the district where her counsel was based, rather than where the suit was litigated, as plaintiff did not satisfy the exception to the forum rule for attorney's fees.
Zakrzewska v. The New School (No. 09-0611)
Decision Date: July 27, 2009
Question of whether the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense to employer liability applies to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under the New York City Human Rights Law is certified to the New York Court of Appeals where the issue was appropriate for certification because of the absence of authoritative state court decisions, the importance of the issue to the state, and the capacity of certification to resolve this litigation.
Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (No. 06-5486)
Decision Date: July 2, 2008
In the context of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) failure-to-accommodate claims and the general rule that it is the responsibility of the individual with a disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed, the circuit court rules that an employer has a duty reasonably to accommodate an employee's disability if the disability is obvious—which is to say, if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virgin Islands
Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group Inc. (No. 09-1105)
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
In plaintiff's race, national-origin, employment discrimination and retaliation action against defendant-former employer, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims in his second complaint is affirmed as plaintiff's federal claims are barred by res judicata because his section 1981 claims arise from the same set of facts as his Title VII claims which were dismissed in his first complaint. Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state claim and dismissed without prejudice instead of dismissing that claim with prejudice.
Erdman v. Nationwide Ins. Co. (07-3796)
Decision Date: September 23, 2009
In plaintiff's case against her former employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and for retaliation, summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer is affirmed in part, and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) the record indicates that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant-Nationwide had constructive notice of hours plaintiff worked from home and thus, she was eligible for FMLA leave for purposes of summary judgment; 2) the version of section 825.110 in effect at the time of plaintiff's dismissal was invalid; 3) firing an employee for a valid request for FMLA leave may constitute interference with the employee's FMLA rights as well as retaliation against the employee; and 4) because no reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff was fired because of her daughter's known disability, district court's summary judgment on her ADA claim is affirmed.
Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania (No. 07-4023)
Decision Date: September 10, 2009
In plaintiff's gender and employment discrimination action alleging pay disparity against County-employer under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, district court's judgment that the Title VII claim is untimely as to paychecks plaintiff received after June 20, 2006, is reversed and remanded in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, where a failure to answer a request for a raise qualifies as a compensation decision because the result is the same as if the request had been explicitly denied.
Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc. (No. 07-3997)
Decision Date: August 28, 2009
In an employment discrimination action under Title VII involving claims of gender stereotyping and religious harassment, district court\'s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated with respect to the gender stereotyping claim, as the record below is ambiguous as to whether the claim was based on sexual orientation or discrimination because of sex, and thus because both are plausible, the case presents a question of fact for the jury and is not appropriate for summary judgment. District court\'s grant of summary judgment on the religious harassment claim was proper as plaintiff cannot satisfy the first element of his cause of action that there was intentional harassment because of religion.
Holender v. Mut. Indus. North, Inc. (No. 06-4632)
Decision Date: June 3, 2008
In a case addressing whether documents submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by an employee qualified as a "charge" within the meaning of Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), summary judgment for employer based on a lack of administrative exhaustion is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff submitted an EEOC form containing multiple references to itself as a charge; and 2) he also attached an affidavit which referred to the "instant charge filed on behalf of all persons similarly situated," clearly evincing that he was seeking legal relief.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
EEOC v. Central Wholesalers, Inc. (No. 08-1181)
Decision Date: July 21, 2009
In a Title VII action by the EEOC claiming that defendant subjected an employee to a hostile work environment based on her gender and race, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the EEOC, would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that the harassment was: 1) unwelcome; 2) based on plaintiff's gender or race; 3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment and create an abusive atmosphere; and 4) imputable to defendant.
Ziskie v. Mineta (No. 062060)
Decision Date: November 14, 2008
In a Title VII claim alleging that defendant-employer created a sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against plaintiff for asserting her rights, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Secretary of Transportation who administers plaintiff's former employer is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where there was a possibility that the district court did not appropriately consider the affidavits from plaintiff's co-workers, which were relevant to whether the plaintiff's work environment was hostile.
Welch v. Chao (No. 07-1684)
Decision Date: August 5, 2008
Petition for review of a ruling finding that petitioner's discharge by respondent-employer did not violate the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is affirmed where none of petitioner's communications constituted protected activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as a matter of law.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Nelson v. Univ. of Texas (No. 07-10660)
Decision Date: July 10, 2008
In a suit brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act after plaintiff was terminated for absenteeism even though defendant had approved his request for leave, dismissal of plaintiff's action under Eleventh Amendment immunity is reversed and the case remanded where reinstatement is an acceptable form of prospective relief that comes within the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee
Risch v. Royal Oak Police Dep't (08-1883)
Decision Date: September 23, 2009
In plaintiff's gender discrimination action under Title VII against the police department, summary judgment for defendants is reversed and remanded as plaintiff, a patrol officer and a seventeen-year veteran with the department, had arguably superior qualification than the two successful applicants who received the promotions as detectives and produced other probative evidence of gender discrimination.
Pedreira v. Ky. Baptist Homes for Children (No. 08-5538)
Decision Date: August 31, 2009
In an action under the First Amendment and various employment statutes challenging defendant-Baptist Homes for Children's policy of firing and not hiring gay and lesbian employees, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the termination of plaintiff based on her sexual orientation did not constitute discrimination on account of religion. However, the ruling is reversed in part where plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated standing as state taxpayers for their Establishment Clause challenge.
Hunter v. Valley View Local Schs. (No. 08-4109)
Decision Date: August 26, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant-employer impermissibly considered plaintiff's use of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave in deciding to place her on involuntary leave, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there was an issue of material fact as to whether the FMLA leave was a motivating factor in defendant's decision.
Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (No. 08-3246)
Decision Date: August 14, 2009
In a Title VII action claiming that Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff on the basis of her race and sex, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant's claim of mistake was a pretext for race discrimination; but reversed in part, where the combination of close temporal proximity between an employers heightened scrutiny and plaintiff's filing of an EEOC charge is sufficient to establish the causal nexus needed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Dobrowski v. Jay Dee Contractors, Inc. (No. 08-1806)
Decision Date: July 8, 2009
In a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action alleging that Defendant terminated Plaintiff because he took leave under the FMLA, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where equitable estoppel did not bar Defendant from raising non-eligibility as a defense to Plaintiff's FMLA claim.
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging (No. 07-1570, 07-1647)
Decision Date: September 8, 2008
In an action claiming that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and retaliated against plaintiff's exercise of First Amendment rights when she received a two-day suspension after a conversation with a co-worker, as well as when she was terminated allegedly due to her discussions with a local newspaper reporter, summary judgment for defendants are reversed in part where: 1) the district court correctly found that defendant-agency is a state actor subject to suit under section 1983; and 2) contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff's speech did relate to a matter of public concern and that her FLSA claims were timely.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
Butler v. Village of Round Lake Police Dep't (No. 08-3856)
Decision Date: October 27, 2009
In plaintiff-police officer's ADA claim against defendant-village, dismissal of his case on the ground of judicial estoppel is affirmed where: 1) to succeed on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must show that with or without reasonable accommodations, he can perform the essential functions of his job; and 2) here, accepting plaintiff's sworn testimony before the pension board as true, the court could not see how he could perform essential police functions with or without accommodations.
Brunker v. Schwan's Home Serv., Inc. (No. 07-3183)
Decision Date: October 22, 2009
In plaintiff's disability discrimination action against his former employer, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer is affirmed in part, reversed and vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the disability-discrimination claim is remanded as, although plaintiff's impairments are not sufficient to show that he is disabled, the record contains adequate evidence to support a theory that defendant regarded him as being disabled in the major life activities of walking, caring for himself, and speaking; 2) district court's summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation claim is affirmed; 3) district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to compel discovery on certain issues is reversed; and 4) award of sanctions is vacated because the magistrate judge unreasonably imposed them in response to plaintiff's discovery requests.
Ekstrand v. Sch. Dist. of Somerset (No. 09-1853)
Decision Date: October 6, 2009
In plaintiff's lawsuit against her former employer claiming that school district failed to accommodate her seasonal effective disorder and constructively discharged her in violation of the ADA, judgment of the district court is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) district court's grant of summary judgment on the failure-to-accommodate claim is reversed as plaintiff satisfied all three elements required for the claim; and 2) summary judgment on the constructive-discharge claim was proper as plaintiff failed to show that the conditions of her employment even approached the intolerable levels normally required in constructive-discharge cases.
Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc. (No. 08-3721)
Decision Date: August 20, 2009
In an employment-discrimination case, district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant on grounds that the plaintiff failed to timely file a charge with the EEOC is vacated and remanded where defendant failed to show absence of a genuine factual dispute over whether plaintiff's charge had been timely filed via fax where it was not the plaintiff who had to prove receipt, but the defendant who had to prove the absence of receipt - the fax confirmation creates a factual dispute sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Valentino v. Village of South Chicago Heights (No. 06-3882)
Decision Date: July 30, 2009
In an action for First Amendment retaliation and retaliatory discharge, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff established a prima facie case for retaliation and presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that defendants' stated reason for terminating her employment was pretextual; 2) plaintiff's Monell claim may proceed to trial as plaintiff has shown that the mayor was the final policymaker for defendant, such that defendant may be held liable if the jury finds that the mayor and village administrator retaliated against her in violation of her First Amendment rights; and 3) defendant is not entitled to immunity under the the Illinois Tort Immunity Act from plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim as the decision to fire her did not amount to a policy decision as defined by the Illinois courts.
Casna v. City of Loves Park (No. 07-1044)
Decision Date: July 24, 2009
In an employment termination brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) plaintiff is entitled to proceed to trial on her due-process claim as she had a property interest in continuing employment and defendant deprived her of it without a hearing; and 2) an informal complaint may constitute protected activity for purposes of retaliation claims under the ADA; and 3) there is a triable issue as to whether the employer initiated plaintiff's discharge because she had just protested her supervisor's possibly discriminatory attitude or because her work performance was inadequate.
Sanders v. Hayden (No. 08-1596)
Decision Date: September 12, 2008
In a suit by a plaintiff civilly committed as a sexually violent person, alleging violations of civil rights by state officials for cutting the wages he received for work he performed in the facility, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where the Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to civilly-committed sexually dangerous persons.
Franzen v. Ellis Corp. (No. 07-2009, 07-3358)
Decision Date: September 10, 2008
In a suit alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), breach of contract, and retaliation by defendant-employer, judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to damages or attorneys' fees is affirmed where: 1) while defendant had violated FMLA, plaintiff failed to prove that he would have been able to return to work or that he had attempted to mitigate his damages; and 2) FMLA's required award of attorneys' fees to prevailing plaintiffs did not apply since, despite the jury verdict for plaintiff on the liability issue, the final judgment was correctly entered for defendant.
Davis v. Indiana State Police (No. 07-2543)
Decision Date: September 3, 2008
In an age-discrimination suit brought by a state police trooper, dismissal for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded where plaintiff properly pleaded his claim that he was discriminated against due to age and that defendant was subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, with the burden of proof on defendant to demonstrate that it was excepted from the act.
Henry v. Milwaukee County (No. 07-2534)
Decision Date: August 20, 2008
In a Title VII suit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation by defendant-employer for its policy of assigning some correction officers' shifts in single-sex juvenile detention facilities on the basis of sex, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) sex-based assignments weren't reasonably necessary to achieve the facility's goals of privacy, security, and rehabilitation, and therefore an officer's sex could not be considered a bona fide occupational qualification that would except defendant from the requirements of Title VII; but 2) plaintiffs had not proven their harassment or retaliation claims.
Newkirk v. Vill. of Steger (No. 06-3140)
Decision Date: August 6, 2008
In a discrimination and retaliation suit by employees of defendant police department, dismissal with prejudice based on a settlement agreement is affirmed over objections that not all plaintiffs had agreed to the settlement, where the written record, including the agreement itself and the transcript of the open-court affirmation of the settlement by plaintiffs, evidenced an objective meeting of the minds and validated the agreement.
Hall v. Nalco Co. (No. 06-3684)
Decision Date: July 16, 2008
In a Title VII sex discrimination suit alleging plaintiff was fired for taking time off from work to undergo in vitro fertilization after being diagnosed with infertility, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where, contrary to the ruling below, plaintiff stated a cognizable sex discrimination claim under the language of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII because adverse employment actions taken on account of childbearing capacity affect only women, even though infertility affects both sexes.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota
White v. Nat'l Football League (No. 08-2001)
Decision Date: November 10, 2009
In a case involving whether, after NFL quarterback Michael Vick was convicted of dog fighting charges, his team was entitled to recover certain bonus money he earned, rulings against the NFL are affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected the NFL's argument that Vick's roster bonuses were signing bonus allocations subject to the years-performed test; and 2) it did not err in determining that the bonuses were earned when Vick met the roster provisions in his contract, and were thus not subject to forfeiture pursuant to the terms of a settlement in an antitrust class action and the CBA. Moreover, the denial of the NFL's motion to recuse the district judge and terminate the consent decree is affirmed where 1) there was no indication that the NFL was restrained by any fear of antitrust liability; 2) the parties' agreement to the district court's involvement mitigated concerns about unsettling the power structure under the labor laws; and 3) the district judge's comments to the press did not create an appearance of partiality.
Baker v. Silver Oak Senior Living Mgmt. Co. (No. 08-1036)
Decision Date: September 14, 2009
In an age discrimination action based on an alleged wrongful termination, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where there was evidence that people who participated in the decision to terminate plaintiff evinced a preference for the employment of younger workers over persons in the class protected by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
Rush v. Perryman (No. 08-3148)
Decision Date: September 3, 2009
In former college president's action against the college's Board of Trustees alleging violation of his state and federal statutory and constitutional rights, denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity is affirmed where plaintiff's employment was terminated in an open session of the Board for alleged misconduct including dishonesty - an accepted stigmatizing charge - and thus, plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated a violation of his clearly established due process right to a post-termination name-clearing hearing.
EEOC v. Siouxland Oral Maxillofacial Surgery Assoc. (No. 07-2419)
Decision Date: August 27, 2009
In an employment and sex discrimination case under Title VII, district court\'s judgment is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in not submitting plaintiff\'s claim for punitive damages to the jury and granting defendant judgment as a matter of law on that claim as under Title VII, punitive damages are available if a plaintiff shows that the employer engaged in intentional discrimination with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights, and evidence presented by the EEOC at trial was sufficient for a jury to find that defendant acted in the face of a perceived risk that it was violating plaintiffs\' Title VII rights; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying EEOC\'s request for injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy or retaliating against any employee who complains of unlawful discrimination as, in light of the two isolated instances of discrimination, there was not a consistent practice of discrimination suggesting further discrimination was likely; 3) court declined to address the district court\'s award of attorney\'s fees at this time as further proceedings are necessary on the issue of punitive damages.
Winspear v. Community Development, Inc. (No. 08-2041)
Decision Date: July 29, 2009
In an employment discrimination action, district court judgment is reversed where the court erred in treating plaintiff's hostile work environment claim as one for constructive discharge. The matter is remanded for further proceedings on the hostile work environment discrimination claim.
Jenkins v. England (No. 07-2049)
Decision Date: September 2, 2008
In a Title VII case, the grant of summary judgment to defendant on hostile work environment claims is reversed and remanded where admissible portions of affidavits, improperly excluded in their entirety as hearsay, bring into dispute the material element of when the employer knew of the harassment.
Roberts v. Park Nicollet Health Serv. (No. 07-1738)
Decision Date: June 24, 2008
In an employment lawsuit claiming that employer's decision to terminate plaintiff's position as a certified medical assistant was motivated in part by her pregnancy, summary judgment for employer is reversed and remanded where there were genuine disputes for trial concerning: 1) whether employer's basis for terminating plaintiff for tardiness was pretextual; and 2) whether plaintiff's pregnancy was a motivating factor in her termination
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington
Balen v. Holland Am. Line Inc. (No. 07-36011)
Decision Date: October 2, 2009
In an action for unpaid wages under the Seamen's Wage Act, the district court's order granting defendant's motion to compel arbitration is affirmed where claims under the Act are subject to arbitration pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and plaintiff's claim was subject to a valid arbitration agreement.
Indergard v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (No. 08-35278)
Decision Date: September 28, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant-employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by terminating plaintiff based on her failure to pass a physical capacity evaluation, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where the district court erred in holding that the evaluation was not a medical examination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. section 12112(d)(4)(A).
LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka (No. 07-17116)
Decision Date: September 15, 2009
In an action claiming that defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) by accessing plaintiff's computer without authorization, both while defendant was employed by plaintiff and after he left the company, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant was authorized to use plaintiff's computers while he was employed by plaintiff, and thus he did not access a computer "without authorization" in violation of the applicable statutes when he emailed documents to himself and to his wife prior to leaving employment; and 2) plaintiff failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant accessed plaintiff's website without authorization after he left the company.
EEOC v. Boeing Co. (No. 07-16903)
Decision Date: August 18, 2009
In a sex discrimination action by the EEOC, summary judgment for defendant-employer is reversed where the EEOC introduced adequate evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the reasons defendant advanced to justify its employment actions were pretextual.
Mevorah v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (No. 08-15355)
Decision Date: July 7, 2009
In a class action alleging failure to pay overtime brought by current and former Wells Fargo home mortgage consultants, the District Court's order certifying a class is reversed where the District Court abused its discretion by relying on Defendant's uniform policy of treating its employees as exempt from overtime laws, to the near exclusion of other relevant factors touching on predominance.
Poore v. Simpson Paper Co. (No. 05-36060)
Decision Date: September 22, 2008
In a dispute over retirement benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs interests had not vested, and the court lacked ERISA jurisdiction, because the collective bargaining agreement in question reserved defendant's right to change the welfare benefits in question; and 2) plaintiffs' contractual claims did not trigger jurisdiction under the Labor Management Relations Act because the rights in question were not vested.
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano (No. 07-17272, 07-17274, 08-15357)
Decision Date: September 17, 2008
In a facial challenge to the legality of the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), judgment in favor of the state is affirmed where: 1) LAWA is not expressly preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) which allows state regulation through licensing law; 2) LAWA's requirement that employers use federally voluntary E-Verify technology is not impliedly preempted by IRCA; and 3) LAWA's provisions regarding employers' right to dispute findings of employee authorization to work do not facially violate due process.
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Federal Express Corp. (No. 06-16864)
Decision Date: September 10, 2008
In an employment discrimination case, a decision to enforce an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoena seeking company-wide data is affirmed where: 1) subpoena compliance was not moot due to either the complaining employee having joined a private suit or defendant having complied with an identical subpoena in a separate EEOC investigation; 2) the EEOC retains the authority to issue subpoenas on an employer after issuing a right to sue notice allowing private suit; and 3) the EEOC has jurisdiction to see company-wide data when an individual charges systematic discrimination.
Whitman v. Mineta (No. 05-36231, CV-04-00018)
Decision Date: September 2, 2008
In an age discrimination case against the Federal Aviation Administration, the dismissal of plaintiff;s retaliation claim is reversed and remanded where the Supreme Court's decision in Gomez-Perez v. Potter superseded the district court's holding by clarifying that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does permit retaliation claims against the federal government.
Parra v. Bashas', Inc. (No. 06-16038)
Decision Date: July 29, 2008
In a class action brought by current and former employees of defendant alleging that they had been discriminated against based upon their national origin in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981, a decision denying certification of the class alleging pay discrimination is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in failing to find commonality in plaintiffs' original class definition for the discriminatory pay claim.
Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp. (No. 06-15903)
Decision Date: July 23, 2008
In an employment discrimination case involving an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, denial of defendant-employer's motion to compel arbitration and partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed where: 1) for purposes of a breach-of-agreement theory, plaintiff did not properly initiate arbitration under the terms of his employment agreement via a letter he sent; and 2) the district court improperly granted summary judgment in plaintiff's favor on the issue of waiver.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming
DeFreitas v. Horizon Inv. Mgmt. Corp. (No. 08-4034)
Decision Date: August 14, 2009
In a Title VII action alleging that Defendant improperly terminated Plaintiff while she was on medical leave, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of the intent necessary for religious discrimination; but reversed in part, where there were many reasons to question Defendants' evidence regarding the alleged grounds for Plaintiff's termination.
Kelley v. City of Albuquerque (No. 05-2309, 05-2317)
Decision Date: September 17, 2008
In an action claiming that defendants retaliated against plaintiff-former Albuquerque assistant city attorney in violation of Title VII and state law, rulings for plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was an employee as defined by Title VII, as the immediate adviser exemption was inapplicable; 2) her participation as a defense attorney in an EEOC mediation constituted protected activity within the meaning of Title VII and state law; 3) the city forfeited its challenge regarding a causal connection between her participation in the EEOC proceedings and her termination; and 4) there was no error in instructing the jury or in denying summary judgment. However, summary judgment for the city on a class-of-one Equal Protection claim is affirmed as the class-of-one theory is not legally cognizable where, as here, a public employee claims that she has been treated differently than other employees.
Hesse v. Town of Jackson (No. 07-8032)
Decision Date: September 15, 2008
In an employment termination case brought by a former town attorney against the town's mayor, administrator, clerk, and one of its council members, denial of qualified immunity for defendants is reversed where: 1) neither a state statute, a town ordinance and resolution, nor an employment contract, provided plaintiff with a constitutionally protected property interest in continued public employment; 2) for purposes of a free speech claim, plaintiff's heated conversation with a town administrator did not enjoy First Amendment protection as it occurred pursuant to his official duties; and 3) defendants' eavesdropping on the conversation did not constitute an illegal search and seizure as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his work-related, run-of-the-mill quarrel in his office.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in the District of Columbia
Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. (No. 07-5320)
Decision Date: July 31, 2009
In an employment discrimination action against the U.S. Capitol Police, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed in part where the Capitol Police's administrative appeal process is jurisdictional and thus equitable doctrines, such as vicarious exhaustion, do not apply to excuse compliance with it. However the ruling is reversed in part where: 1) neither the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) nor the procedural rules of the Office of Compliance require in-person attendance by the employee at counseling or mediation; and 2) receipt of written notice of the end of mediation from the Office of Compliance triggered the CAA's 30 to 90-day period for electing whether to pursue judicial or administrative relief and demonstrated the employee's completion of counseling and mediation.
Steele v. Schafer (No. 05-5430)
Decision Date: August 1, 2008
In a Title VII suit alleging creation of a hostile work environment and retaliation, summary judgment for defendant-Department of Agriculture is reversed where: 1) there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff's claims were time-barred; 2) the hostile-environment claim was improperly barred by adoption of an inappropriate timeliness rule; and 3) the wrong legal standard was applied to the retaliation claim.
Adams v. Rice (No. 07-5101)
Decision Date: July 18, 2008
In a suit brought under the Rehabilitation Act after plaintiff passed her civil service examination but was disqualified because she had been diagnosed with breast cancer, summary judgment for the defendant is reversed where: 1) the court finds that sexual relations qualify as a major life activity under the act; 2) that plaintiff's breast cancer qualifies as a disability because it amounted to a physical impairment that substantially limited her in a major life activity; 3) the court rejects the government's argument that an employer cannot be held liable unless it knows not only about the history of impairment but also how that impairment substantially limited a major life activity
Appeals from Merit Systems Protection Board and other federal agencies
Erickson v. US Postal Service (No. 08-3216)
Decision Date: July 15, 2009
In an action brought by a former postal service employee under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), Merit Systems Protection Board judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the Board erred in rejecting plaintiff's claim of unlawful discrimination based on his military service as plaintiff's cumulative military absence at the time of his removal did not exceed five years and thus he retained employment rights under USERRA; 2) the Board properly held that plaintiff failed to make a timely application for reemployment under USERRA and thus defendant did not unlawfully refuse to reemploy him after his service; and 3) the case is remanded so that the Board can explicitly address whether plaintiff waived his USERRA rights by abandoning his civilian career to pursue one in the military.
